Three-year clinical evaluation of class II posterior composite restorations placed with different techniques and flowable composite linings in endodontically treated teeth

Karaman, Emel; Keskin, Busra; İnan, Uğur

doi:10.1007/s00784-016-1940-y

Cited by 29 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Fifteen studies evaluated marginal adaptation after 12 months, with one study [ 17 ] presenting three experimental groups, and another [ 40 ] two experimental groups, totaling 18 experimental groups ( Fig 4 ). Among the 18 groups, 12 presented results that favored the control group (conventional composite), [ 19 , 25 , 27 , 28 , 30 , 33 , 34 , 37 , 40 , 41 ] two that favored the experimental group (resins with modified monomers) [ 32 , 35 ], one that did not favor any of the groups, since results were similar for both groups [ 29 ], two presented no marginal adaptation alterations in both groups [ 17 , 26 ], and one study reported that all restorations in both groups demonstrated some sort of marginal adaptation alteration [ 38 ]. Meta-analysis demonstrated that at the 12-month follow-up assessment, the overall effect of methacrylates-based composite resins was significantly better than the ormocer, silorane and bulk-fill composites (p = 0.001).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Meta-analysis of the clinical behavior of posterior direct resin restorations: Low polymerization shrinkage resin in comparison to methacrylate composite resin

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Polymerization shrinkage of resin composite can compromise the longevity of restorations. To minimize this problem, the monomeric composition of composites have been modified. The objective of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis to assess the clinical behavior of restorations performed with low polymerization shrinkage resin composite in comparison with traditional methacrylates-based resin composite. This systematic review was registered at Prospero data system (CRD42015023940). Studies were searched in the electronic databases PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Lilacs and EMBASE according to a predefined search strategy. The inclusion criteria were as follow: (1) randomized controlled clinical trials with at least six months of follow-up; (2) studies investigating composites with monomers designed to reduce polymerization shrinkage; (3) studies conducted with class I or II restorations in the permanent dentition; and (4) studies that assessed at least one of the following criteria: marginal integrity/adaptation, marginal discoloration, recurent caries, retention of composite restorations, and postoperative sensitivity. Two independent reviewers analyzed the articles to determine inclusion and risk of bias. The search conducted in the databases resulted in a total of 14,217 studies. After reviewing the references and citations, 21 articles remained. The longest clinical follow-up time was 60 months. The meta-analysis of the data in the included studies demonstrated that only one variable (marginal adaptation after 12 months) showed statistically significant outcomes, in which methacrylates-based composites presented significantly better results than resin composites containing modified monomers. The good level of the scientific evidence as well as the overall low risk of bias of the included studies indicate that composites with silorane, ormocer or bulk-fill type modified monomers have a clinical performance similar to conventional resin composites.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Meta-analysis of the clinical behavior of posterior direct resin restorations: Low polymerization shrinkage resin in comparison to methacrylate composite resin

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…reports have assessed their durability in natural mouth conditions 7,10,[19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] . Among numerous parameters determining the preservation of a restoration placed in a cavity, marginal integrity and absence of leakage seem to take part as the most important.…”

Section: Scopusmentioning

confidence: 99%

Marginal integrity of flowable and packable bulk fill materials used for class II restorations —A systematic review and meta-analysis of <i>in vitro</i> studies

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This systematic review evaluates the marginal integrity of flowable and packable bulk fill composite materials placed in class II cavities. Electronic databases inclusive of MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched without restriction to date. The titles and abstracts of publications gathered from database searches were screened by reviewers according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. From as initial yield of 142 articles ten studies were subject to qualitative analysis. The authors emphasized that marginal integrity in enamel and dentin does not significantly differ between flowable and packable bulk fill composites used for class II restorations. Moreover, their marginal integrity was comparable to conventional resin composites with incremental techniques. The adhesive system used with a total etch technique and assessed margin located in enamel resulted in better marginal integrity.

show abstract

“…In one of them, the deflection of aluminum molds of various thicknesses was measured for conventional composites placed in a single or multiple increments, with the results showing that the single increment technique always resulted in greater wall deflection [72]. There is also some clinical evidence that incremental technique improves the outcomes of restorations of conventional dental composites [2, 75]. In one clinical study, pre-molars scheduled for extraction for orthodontic reasons received standardized preparations and were restored with either a single or several increments.…”

Section: Bulk-fill Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Polymer-Based Direct Filling Materials

Pfeifer

2017

Dental Clinics of North America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Synopsis After a brief review of current restorative materials and classifications, this article discusses the latest developments in polymer-based direct filling materials, with emphasis on products and studies available in the last 10 years. This will include the more recent bulk-fill composites and self-adhesive materials, for which clinical evidence of success, albeit somewhat limited, is already available. The article will also introduce the latest cutting edge research topics on new materials for composite restorations, and an outlook for the future of how those may help improve the service-life of dental composite restorations.

show abstract

Three-year clinical evaluation of class II posterior composite restorations placed with different techniques and flowable composite linings in endodontically treated teeth

Abstract: Restorations placed with bulk-filling technique with x-tra base lining and incremental technique with a conventional flowable lining showed highly clinical performance over 3-year period.

Cited by 29 publications

References 38 publications

Meta-analysis of the clinical behavior of posterior direct resin restorations: Low polymerization shrinkage resin in comparison to methacrylate composite resin

Meta-analysis of the clinical behavior of posterior direct resin restorations: Low polymerization shrinkage resin in comparison to methacrylate composite resin

Marginal integrity of flowable and packable bulk fill materials used for class II restorations —A systematic review and meta-analysis of <i>in vitro</i> studies

Polymer-Based Direct Filling Materials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About